Proposition 2: State Budget – Budget Stabilization Account

Proposition 2:
State Budget – Budget Stabilization Account
Copyright © 2014 by the University of the Pacific,
McGeorge School of Law
By
Eric Riviera-Jurado
J.D., University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law, to be conferred May 2015
B.A., Political Science, California State University, Sacramento, 2011
and
Robert Binning
J.D., University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law, to be conferred May 2015
M.A., Government, California State University, Sacramento, 2010
B.A., Political Science, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, 2008
I.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Proposition 2 is a legislatively referred constitutional amendment that would impact
California’s debts as well as both the State’s and school districts’ monetary reserves. 1 The
proposition was originally titled Proposition 44, but was renamed by Senate Bill (S.B.) 867 on
August 11, 2014. 2 Proposition 2 would amend the State constitution in three ways. 3
First, Proposition 2 would mandate that the State, subject to budget emergencies, deposit
specified funds into the State’s Budget Stabilization Account (B.S.A.), which functions as a
rainy-day fund for the State during difficult economic times. 4 Additionally, it would increase the
maximum size of the B.S.A. and would make it more difficult for the State to withdraw funds
from or deposit less than the statutorily prescribed amount of funds into the B.S.A. 5 Second, for
the next fifteen fiscal years, Proposition 2 would require the State, subject to budget
emergencies, to spend General Fund revenue to reduce State debts owed to pensions, retiree
health benefits, local governments, and other state accounts. 6 Third, Proposition 2 would create a
State reserve account for the benefit of public schools and community colleges and its passage
would trigger a stipulation in a separate legislative act, S.B. 858, which would require school
districts to reduce their reserve accounts to a specified level. 7
A “yes” vote would likely lead the State to increase State budget reserves, decrease State
debt faster than it would otherwise, and reduce the amount of funds school districts may keep in
local reserve accounts. 8
A “no” vote would leave the rules related to State budget reserves, repayment of State
debts, and public school district budget reserves unchanged. 9
II. ROAD TO THE BALLOT
Proposition 2 is a legislatively referred constitutional amendment, which is a bill from the
Legislature proposing to amend the State constitution. 10 It was originally introduced by
Assembly Member Gatto (Democratic Party, Assembly District 43, Los Angeles) during the
1
CAL. SEC’Y OF STATE, OFFICIAL VOTER INFORMATION GUIDE: CALIFORNIA GENERAL ELECTION,
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2014, at 12, available at http://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2014/general/pdf/completevig.pdf#page=74 [“NOVEMBER 2014 VOTER GUIDE”].
2
S.B. 867 (2013–14), available at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/sen/sb_08510900/sb_867_bill_20140811_chaptered.pdf.
3
Infra Part III(B).
4
Infra Part III(B)(1).
5
Id.
6
Infra Part III(B)(2).
7
Infra Part III(B)(3).
8
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE, PROPOSITION 2, 1 (July 17, 2014), available at
http://www.lao.ca.gov/ballot/2014/prop-2-110414.pdf [L.A.O. ANALYSIS].
9
Id.
10
Both the California State Legislature and the people of California must approve amendments to the
California constitution. CAL. CONST. art. XVIII, §§ 1, 4.
1
2009–2010 legislative session. 11 The bill received the requisite two-thirds vote from each
chamber of the State Legislature and the Governor approved it on October 13, 2010. 12 Under
prior law, the Secretary of State was required to submit the constitutional amendment, then
known as Assembly Constitutional Amendment (A.C.A.) 4, to the first general or statewide
special election to occur within 131 days of the amendment’s qualification for the ballot. 13
However, in 2011, Senator Hancock (Democratic Party, Senate District 9, Berkeley) authored
S.B. 202 that explicitly required the Secretary of State to place A.C.A. 4 on the November 4,
2014, statewide general election ballot and all subsequent constitutional amendments only on
ballots during general elections occurring in even-numbered years. 14
On April 16, 2014, Governor Edmund G. Brown called an extraordinary session of the
California State Legislature to alter A.C.A. 4 to more “adequately address [the State’s] debts and
liabilities.” 15 In particular, the Governor sought for the new version of the amendment to: “(1)
[i]ncrease deposits when the state experiences spikes in capital gains revenues, the state's most
volatile tax revenue; (2) [a]llow supplemental payments to accelerate the state's payoff of its
debts and liabilities; (3) [c]reate a Proposition 98 reserve to smooth school spending and avoid
future cuts; (4) [r]aise the maximum size of the Rainy Day Fund to 10 percent of General Fund
revenues; (5) [and] [l]imit withdrawals to ensure the state does not overly rely on the fund at the
start of a downturn.” 16 During the extraordinary session, the State Legislature adopted A.C.A. 1,
which integrated the Governor’s requested changes and required the Secretary of State to replace
A.C.A. 4 with A.C.A. 1 on the November 4, 2014, ballot under the designation “Proposition
44.” 17
Following the extraordinary session and the adoption of A.C.A. 1, S.B. 867 was enacted,
changing the ballot designation of the constitutional amendment from “Proposition 44” to
“Proposition 2,” and required the Secretary of State and county election officials to revise all
voting materials to reflect this new designation. 18 Pundits explain that the renumbering of both
11
See A.C.A. 4 (2009–10), available at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_00010050/aca_4_bill_20101013_chaptered.pdf.
12
Complete Bill History, OFFICIAL CAL. LEGIS. INFO., http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/0910/bill/asm/ab_0001-0050/aca_4_bill_20101013_history.html (last visited September 2, 2014). While the
Governor approved the amendment, the Governor’s approval is not necessary to the amendment’s
viability. CAL. CONST. art. XVIII, §§ 1, 4.
13
CAL. ELEC. CODE § 9040.
14
S.B. 202 (Hancock) at § 1 (2011–12), available at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/1112/bill/sen/sb_0201-0250/sb_202_bill_20111007_chaptered.pdf.
15
Governor Brown Calls Special Session to Strengthen Rainy Day Fund, OFFICE OF GOVERNOR EDMUND
G. BROWN JR. (Apr. 16, 2014), http://www.gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=18482.
16
Id.
17
A.C.A. 1 (Second Extraordinary Session, 2013–14), available at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/1314/bill/asm/ab_0001-0050/acax2_1_bill_20140516_chaptered.pdf.
18
S.B. 867 (2013–14), available at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/sen/sb_08510900/sb_867_bill_20140811_chaptered.pdf. “Commencing with the November 3, 1998, general election,
all State measures in all elections at which State measures are submitted to a vote of the voters shall be
numbered in a continuous sequence, commencing with the number “1” and continuing in numerical
sequence for a period of ten years from the year of commencement.” CAL. ELEC. CODE § 13117(a). At the
2
Proposition 44 and the water bond measure, now known as Proposition 1, “symbolically linked”
the measures at the top of the ballot. 19 This may increase support for Proposition 1 by linking it
to the “almost universally lauded” Proposition 2 and distinguishing the two measures from the
other measures on the ballot. 20
III. THE LAW
A. Existing Law
Under current law, the State may deposit funds into the existing B.S.A.; however, the
Governor may choose to put less than the prescribed three percent of General Fund revenues or
nothing at all into the account at his or her discretion. 21 Although State law requires that half of
the money deposited into the B.S.A. be used to pay off certain specified debts, this year’s State
budget is expected to fully repay those obligations. 22 As a result, after this year, there will no
longer be any statutory requirements for the State to expend additional revenue to reduce the
State’s substantial debt. 23 Additionally, the State is required to spend a constitutionally
prescribed amount on public schools and community colleges each year. 24 While current law
does not mandate a State-controlled reserve account exclusively benefitting public schools or
community colleges, local school districts are required to maintain their own reserve accounts. 25
1. State Reserves
The amount that the State may spend each year is based on the amount of taxes the State
receives and available reserve funds. 26 When the economy is struggling, it causes tax revenue to
drop, usually requiring the State to reduce spending or raise taxes. 27 To avoid spending decreases
or tax increases, governments often create budget reserve accounts that they contribute to during
economic booms and then use to mitigate the effects of volatile tax revenue streams in times of
recession. 28 As the Legislative Analyst’s Office (“L.A.O.”) succinctly stated, “[I]f a government
conclusion of the ten-year period, the numbering of the ballot measures restarts at “1.” CAL. ELEC. CODE
§ 13117(b). However, as evidenced in this case, the Legislature may renumber propositions appearing on
ballots. See, e.g., S.B. 867 (2013–14), available at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/sen/sb_08510900/sb_867_bill_20140811_chaptered.pdf.
19
John Myers, New Ballot Numbers for November’s Water, Budget Propositions, KQED NEWS (Aug. 12,
2014), http://blogs.kqed.org/newsfix/2014/08/12/new-ballot-numbers-for-November-water-and-budgetpropositions/.
20
Id.
21
See generally CAL. CONST. art. XVI, § 20.
22
NOVEMBER 2014 VOTER GUIDE, supra note 1, at 16.
23
Id.
24
Id. at 14.
25
Id.
26
Id. at 12.
27
Id.
28
Id.
3
saves more in reserves when the economy is doing well, it spends less during that time and has
more money to spend when the economy is doing poorly.” 29
California has had the B.S.A. since 2004 when voters passed Proposition 58, a prior
constitutional amendment. 30 Proposition 58 empowered the Governor, through executive order,
to determine each year whether the state Controller would deposit three percent or less of
General Fund revenues into the B.S.A. reserve. 31 Currently, three percent of General Fund
revenue is roughly equivalent to three billion dollars. 32 The State Treasurer must spend half of
the funds deposited into the B.S.A., up to five billion dollars, to pay off deficit recovery bonds,
which are likely to be fully repaid in this year’s budget. 33 By statute, the maximum amount the
B.S.A. may reach is $8 billion or five percent of General Fund revenue, whichever is greater. 34
The State may withdraw any or all funds from the B.S.A. through a majority vote by the
Legislature. 35 Since the B.S.A. was created, the State has only deposited funds into the account
in the 2006–2007 and 2007–2008 fiscal years and it currently has a zero balance, although this
year the Governor has decided to deposit funds into the B.S.A. 36
2. State Debts
Currently California is roughly $300 billion, or about three times the State’s annual
budget, in debt. 37 This substantial debt has contributed to the reduction of California’s credit
rating to one of the lowest state ratings in the country, although its creditworthiness has
improved in recent years. 38 The debt includes about $150 billion in already earned pension and
retiree health care benefits owed to public employees and “several billion dollars” owed to local
governments, including school districts. 39 After the deficit recovery bonds issued in 2004 to
overcome California’s immense deficit are fully repaid this year, which will cost the state
29
Id. at 12–13.
See generally CAL. CONST. art. XVI, § 20.
31
Id. at § 20(e).
32
NOVEMBER 2014 VOTER GUIDE, supra note 1, at 13.
33
CAL. CONST. art. XVI, § 20(f)(1). The State issued these deficit recovery bonds to relieve the State of
its substantial budget deficit in 2004. See Id. at § 1.3.
34
NOVEMBER 2014 VOTER GUIDE, supra note 1, at 13; CAL. CONST. art. XVI, § 20(c).
35
NOVEMBER 2014 VOTER GUIDE, supra note 1, at 14.
36
Id. at 13.
37
Id. at 14–15. However, reports about California’s actual amount of debt varies widely. For instance, the
California Public Policy Center estimates that California’s combined outstanding debts may be $848.4
billion. Calculating California’s Total State and Local Government Debt, CAL. PUB. POL’Y CENTER
(Apr. 26, 2013), http://californiapolicycenter.org/calculating-californias-total-state-and-local-governmentdebt/. But see Autumn Carter, Unsustainable California, CAL. COMMON SENSE (June 11, 2014),
http://cacs.org/research/unsustainable-california-the-top-10-issues-facing-the-golden-state-wall-of-debt/
(“California’s actual wall of debt is $443 billion.”).
38
Moody’s Lifts View on California Debt to Highest in 13 Years, CNBC (June 25, 2014, 6:46 PM),
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101789976 (“Of the 47 states rated by Moody's, just two—Illinois and New
Jersey—have lower ratings, while 42 have higher ratings.”).
39
NOVEMBER 2014 VOTER GUIDE, supra note 1, at 14–15.
30
4
approximately $6 billion, there will be no existing statutory requirements for the state to expend
extra funds to repay State debt faster than each individual debt would otherwise require. 40
3. School Reserves
Under the current California Constitution, the State is required to spend about forty
percent of the State’s budget to fund public schools and community colleges. 41 As the vast
majority of the funding for public schools and community colleges comes from the State, any
changes in tax revenue levels dramatically affects the size of the State’s budget and causes
erratic changes to public school funding that significantly affects the services schools may
offer. 42 To mitigate the impact of volatile funding, State law requires school districts to keep
minimum amounts of funds in reserve accounts. 43 While State law requires school districts to
keep between one and five percent of their annual budget in reserve, many districts keep much
more than that in their reserve accounts. 44 Reserve funds serve a multitude of purposes and can
allow districts to make large infrequent expenses or to mitigate the impact of decreased State
funding in low tax revenue years. 45
B. Proposed Law
Proposition 2 would mandate that the State deposit funds into the B.S.A. and use funds to
reduce State debt, except during a budget emergency. 46 Additionally, the proposition would
create a State reserve account for public schools and impose caps on the amount of funds school
districts may keep in their own reserve accounts. 47
1. State Reserves
Proposition 2 would change how the State determines how much money is deposited into
the B.S.A., the maximum size of the B.S.A., and when the State may withdraw funds from the
B.S.A. 48 For the first fifteen fiscal years following the approval of Proposition 2, the State would
be required to deposit 0.75 percent of General Fund revenues into the B.S.A., 49 while using an
additional 0.75 percent of General Fund revenues to pay down specified debts. 50 After
Proposition 2’s requirement to pay down those debts expires in the 2030–2031 fiscal year, the
40
Id. at 16.
Id. at 14; see CITY COLLEGE OF S.F., PROPOSITION 98—HOW DOES IT WORK? 1, available at
http://www.ccsf.edu/dam/Organizational_Assets/About_CCSF/Admin/Governmental_Relations/Propositi
on98_TheTests.pdf.
42
NOVEMBER 2014 VOTER GUIDE, supra note 1, at 14.
43
Id.
44
Id.
45
Id.
46
Infra Part III(A)(1)–(2).
47
Infra Part III(A)(3).
48
NOVEMBER 2014 VOTER GUIDE, supra note 1, at 15.
49
CAL. CONST. art. XVI, § 20(c)(1) (added by Proposition 2); L.A.O. ANALYSIS, supra note 8, at 8.
50
CAL. CONST. art. XVI, § 20(c)(1) (added by Proposition 2); L.A.O. ANALYSIS, supra note 8, at 8; see
infra Part III(b)(2).
41
5
State would be required to deposit the entire 1.5 percent of General Fund revenues previously
allocated by Proposition 2 into the B.S.A. 51 Thus, based on Legislative Analyst’s Office
estimates, for the first fifteen years of Proposition 2 being in effect it would require the State to
deposit between $800 million and $2 billion dollars into the B.S.A. and twice that afterwards. 52
However, the State may put less than the required amount into the B.S.A. or suspend
deposits altogether under two exceptions. 53 Both exceptions require the Governor to call a
“budget emergency” with the support of the Legislature by a majority vote. 54 Under Proposition
2, the Governor may only declare a budget emergency in the event of an emergency, as defined
by the California Constitution, 55 or if available funds are insufficient to maintain “General Fund
spending at and not exceeding the highest level of [any of] the past three years.” 56
Proposition 2 would increase the maximum size of the B.S.A. to about 57 ten percent of
General Fund revenues, which would currently be $11 billion. 58 If this maximum were reached,
Proposition 2 would instead require that the State use excess funds to maintain infrastructure, as
currently defined in California’s Government Code. 59
Under Proposition 2, the State may only take funds out of the B.S.A. if the Governor
declares a budget emergency and the Legislature, by majority vote, authorizes the State to
remove funds either to address an emergency or to maintain spending at the highest level of any
of the past three years. 60 In the first year of a budget emergency, the Legislature may not
51
CAL. CONST. art. XVI, § 20(c)(1) (added by Proposition 2); L.A.O. ANALYSIS, supra note 8, at 8. The
additional 0.75% of General Fund revenue will become available as a result of Proposition 2’s additional
mandate that 0.75% of General Fund revenue be used to pay off State debt will expire after 2029–2030.
CAL. CONST. art. XVI, § 20(c)(1) (added by Proposition 2); L.A.O. ANALYSIS, supra note 8, at 8.
52
L.A.O. ANALYSIS, supra note 8, at 8.
53
CAL. CONST. art. XVI, § 22(b) (added by Proposition 2); L.A.O. ANALYSIS, supra note 8, at 9.
54
CAL. CONST. art. XVI, § 22(a) (added by Proposition 2); L.A.O. ANALYSIS, supra note 8, at 9.
55
CAL. CONST. art. XVI, § 22(b)(1) (added by Proposition 2). “‘[E]mergency’ means the existence, as
declared by the Governor, of conditions of disaster or of extreme peril to the safety of persons and
property within the State, or parts thereof, caused by such conditions as attack or probable or imminent
attack by an enemy of the United States, fire, flood, drought, storm, civil disorder, earthquake, or volcanic
eruption.” CAL. CONST. art. XIII B, § 3(c)(2).
56
CAL. CONST. art. XVI, § 22(b)(2) (added by Proposition 2); L.A.O. ANALYSIS, supra note 8, at 9.
Historically General Fund spending is adjusted for State population and the cost of living. CAL. CONST.
art. XVI, § 22(b)(2)(A) (added by Proposition 2); L.A.O. ANALYSIS, supra note 8, at 9.
57
Because amounts used for paying off prescribed debts and deposited into the B.S.A. are based on
Department of Finance estimates, Proposition 2 can only provide that the B.S.A. will not exceed ten
percent of the Department of Finance’s estimate of General Fund revenues, which cannot be expected to
be perfect each year. See CAL. CONST. art. XVI, § 20(e) (added by Proposition 2).
58
L.A.O. ANALYSIS, supra note 8, at 9–10.
59
CAL. CONST. art. XVI, § 20(e) (added by Proposition 2); L.A.O. ANALYSIS, supra note 8, at 10.
“[I]nfrastructure” means real property, including land and improvements to the land, structures and
equipment integral to the operation of structures, easements, rights-of-way and other forms of interest in
property, roadways, and water conveyances. Cal. Gov't Code § 13101.
60
CAL. CONST. art. XVI, § 22(a) (added by Proposition 2); L.A.O. ANALYSIS, supra note 8, at 9.
6
authorize the State to withdraw more than half of the B.S.A. funds. 61 Only in a second
consecutive year of a budget emergency may the Legislature authorize the State to liquidate the
B.S.A. 62
2. State Debts
Proposition 2 would mandate that the State use additional funds each year to reduce the
debt owed to “pension and retiree health benefits” and for “specified debts to local governments
and other State accounts.” 63 From the 2015–2016 fiscal year through the 2029–2030 fiscal year,
Proposition 2 would require that the State use 0.75 percent of General Fund revenues 64 to pay
down these specified debts. 65 Under current General Fund revenue estimates the proposition
would require the State to pay about $800 million this year towards those debts. 66 Beginning in
the 2030–2031 fiscal year, the proposition would no longer require that the State use 0.75
percent of General Fund revenue to reduce those debts and would instead require the State to
deposit those funds into the B.S.A. 67
Furthermore, Proposition 2 would require the State to spend additional funds to reduce
the debt “when state tax revenue from capital gains are higher than average.” 68 Capital gains tax
revenue 69 varies widely from year-to-year based on fluctuations in the economy, making the
effect of this requirement difficult to predict. 70 For example, if Proposition 2 were in place over
the last thirteen fiscal years, capital gains tax revenues would only have been high enough to
trigger additional debt funding about half of the time. 71 However, the Legislative Analyst’s
61
CAL. CONST. art. XVI, § 22(a)(2)(B) (added by Proposition 2); L.A.O. ANALYSIS, supra note 8, at 9.
CAL. CONST. art. XVI, § 22(a)(2)(B) (added by Proposition 2); L.A.O. ANALYSIS, supra note 8, at 9.
63
L.A.O. ANALYSIS, supra note 8, at 7; accord CAL. CONST. art. XVI, § 20(c)(1)(B) (added by
Proposition 2).
64
For the purposes of Proposition 2, the Director of Finance will estimate General Fund revenues and
expenditures for the upcoming four fiscal years within ten days of the enactment of the budget bill. CAL.
CONST. art. IV, § 12.5 (added by Proposition 2).
65
CAL. CONST. art. XVI, § 20(c)(1) (added by Proposition 2); L.A.O. ANALYSIS, supra note 8, at 8.
Proposition 2 requires the State to use the 0.75% of General Fund revenues set aside to reduce State debt
related to: (1) unfunded General Fund obligations to schools under Proposition 98 that existed on July 1,
2014; (2) budgetary loans to the General Fund from non-General Fund State funds that existed on July 1,
2014; (3) costs imposed on local programs occurring before the 2004–2005 fiscal year that the State must
reimburse the local programs for and that the State may, as prescribed by law, repay over a term of years;
and (4) “[u]nfunded liabilities for State-level pension plans and prefunding other postemployment
benefits” in excess of the amounts already required. CAL. CONST. art. XVI, § 20(c)(1)(B)(2) (added by
Proposition 2).
66
L.A.O. ANALYSIS, supra note 8, at 8.
67
CAL. CONST. art. XVI, § 20(c)(2)(A) (added by Proposition 2); L.A.O. ANALYSIS, supra note 8, at 8.
68
L.A.O. ANALYSIS, supra note 8, at 8.
69
Capital Gains Tax, INVESTOPEDIA, http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/capital_gains_tax.asp
(last visited Oct. 9, 2014) (The capital gains tax is “[a] type of tax levied on capital gains incurred
by individuals and corporations. Capital gains are the profits that an investor realizes when he or
she sells the capital asset for a price that is higher than the purchase price.”).
70
See L.A.O. ANALYSIS, supra note 8, at 8.
71
Id.
62
7
Office notes that when capital gains tax revenues are particularly high, Proposition 2 could
trigger up to an additional $2 billion in spending towards the repayment of State debts per year. 72
3. School Reserves
Proposition 2 would also create a new school State reserve account known as the
“Proposition 98 Reserve” or Public School System Stabilization Account (P.S.S.S.A.). 73 When
the Legislature deposits funds into the P.S.S.S.A. it would trigger a stipulation in S.B. 858 that
would set a cap on the reserve accounts school districts control. 74 However, the implementation
of these changes would not go into effect until after school funding is restored to the levels it was
prior to the latest recession. 75 In years when tax revenue from capital gains is above average and
other specified conditions are met, Proposition 2 would direct some of these additional funds into
the P.S.S.S.A., which may not exceed “ten percent of the total allocations to school districts and
community college districts . . . .” 76 The State could then spend funds from this new reserve
account to moderate the sometimes-harsh effects of volatile budgets on schools and community
colleges by stabilizing the funding they receive. 77 However, in order to allocate funds from the
P.S.S.S.A., the Governor, with the support of the Legislature, would have to declare a budget
emergency. 78 While Proposition 2 would alter when the State spends funds on schools by
holding some funds in the State reserve account, the total amount the State spends on schools
under Proposition 2 would, over time, be identical to the amount spent in its absence. 79
Furthermore, if Proposition 2 is passed and school funding is restored, a section in S.B.
858 would set a cap on the amount of funds school districts can keep in their own reserves in any
72
Id.
CAL. CONST. art. XVI, § 21(a) (added by Proposition 2).
74
CAL. EDUC. CODE § 42127.01 (as added by S.B. 858 (2013–2014)); L.A.O. ANALYSIS, supra note 8, at
10; California Proposition 2, Rainy Day Budget Stabilization Fund Act (2014), BALLOTPEDIA,
http://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_2,_Rainy_Day_Budget_Stabilization_Fund_Act_(2014),
(last visited Sept. 3, 2014); see CAL. EDUC. CODE § 42127.01 (as added by S.B. 858 (2013–2014))
(capping the reserve funds a school district may preserve only if Proposition 2 is adopted by the people in
the November 4, 2014, general election).
75
CAL. CONST. art. XVI, § 21(f) (added by Proposition 2); Press Release, Office of Governor Edmund G.
Brown Jr., Governor Brown, Legislative Leaders Announce Rainy Day Fund Agreement (May 8, 2014),
available at http://gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=18517 (“[T]he Proposition 98 reserve would not begin until
school funding is fully restored following cuts made during the Great Recession.”) [Press Release].
76
CAL. CONST. art. XVI, § 21(h) (added by Proposition 2); accord L.A.O. ANALYSIS, supra note 8, at 10.
77
See L.A.O. ANALYSIS, supra note 8, at 10 (“Before money would go into this reserve, the State would
have to make sure that the amount spent on schools and community colleges grows along with the
number of students and the cost of living. The State could spend money out of this reserve to lessen the
impact of difficult budgetary situations on schools and community colleges.”).
78
CAL. CONST. art. XVI, § 22(a)(4) (added by Proposition 2).
79
CAL. CONST. art. XVI, § 21(j), (k) (added by Proposition 2); L.A.O. ANALYSIS, supra note 8, at 10
(“Though Proposition 2 changes when the State would spend money on schools and community colleges,
it does not directly change the total amount of State spending for schools and community colleges over
the long run.”); Press Release, supra note 75 (Proposition 2 would “[c]reate a Proposition 98 reserve to
smooth school spending and avoid future cuts. This reserve for schools makes no changes to the
guaranteed level of funding dedicated to schools under Proposition 98.”).
73
8
year after the State deposits funds into the P.S.S.S.A. 80 For the most part, S.B. 858 would require
school districts to keep their reserves below a certain threshold in years after the State deposited
funds into the P.S.S.S.A. 81 Depending on the size of the district, the cap will be set between
three percent and ten percent of the district’s annual budget. 82 When school districts face
“extraordinary fiscal circumstances, including, but not limited to, multiyear infrastructure or
technology projects,” county education officials may exempt school districts from these caps on
their reserves. 83 Because the cap on school district reserves is the creation of S.B. 858, which is
contingent on Proposition 2 passing, future Legislatures could change the law regarding the cap
on school district reserves by majority vote. 84
IV. DRAFTING ISSUES
The Legislative Analyst’s Office (L.A.O.) has noted that Proposition 2 may further
reduce the public’s already limited understanding of the budget process and relies on uncertain
revenue estimates, which may lead to unintended consequences. 85 Formula-driven ballot
measures have already complicated California’s budget process. 86 For example, Proposition 98
employs several constitutional budget formulas that have created a process for determining
annual school funding that “is understood by a small number of insiders.” 87 Additionally, the
L.A.O. notes that the Gann limit, the progeny of Proposition 111, includes estimates relevant to
the budget that “are difficult to fathom.” 88 The L.A.O. cautions that the creation of additional
constitutional budget formulas through Proposition 2 could adversely affect the public’s
understanding of the budget process. 89
Second, the L.A.O. notes that the implementation of Proposition 2 would require reliance
on data that is uncertain, currently unknown, and subject to interpretation. 90 For example,
Proposition 2 would require a certain percentage of General Fund revenue to be deposited into
different accounts each year, but as the L.A.O. notes, when the Governor and Legislature finalize
80
CAL. EDUC. CODE § 42127.01 (as added by S.B. 858 (2013–2014)); L.A.O. ANALYSIS, supra note 8, at
10. This restriction would not affect community colleges. CAL. EDUC. CODE § 42127.01 (as added by S.B.
858 (2013–2014)); L.A.O. ANALYSIS, supra note 8, at 10.
81
L.A.O. ANALYSIS, supra note 8, at 10; see CAL. EDUC. CODE § 42127.01 (as added by S.B. 858 (2013–
2014)).
82
L.A.O. ANALYSIS, supra note 8, at 10; see CAL. EDUC. CODE § 42127.01 (as added by S.B. 858 (2013–
2014)).
83
CAL. EDUC. CODE § 42127.01(b) (as added by S.B. 858 (2013–2014)); L.A.O. ANALYSIS, supra note 8,
at 10. In failing to explicitly define “extraordinary fiscal circumstances” the Legislature would leave
county superintendents of schools significant leeway to grant districts exceptions to the reserve cap.
84
L.A.O. ANALYSIS, supra note 8, at 10–11.
85
MAC TAYLOR, LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE, THE 2014–2015 BUDGET: OVERVIEW OF THE
GOVERNOR’S BUDGET 20–21 (2014), available at
http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2014/budget/overview/budget-overview-2014.pdf.
86
Id. at 20.
87
Id.
88
Id.
89
Id.
90
Id. at 21.
9
the amount to be deposited under the proposition’s formulas, they would be relying on uncertain,
imperfect, unreliable data concerning capital gains taxes, among other things. 91 Since
Proposition 2’s deposit and withdrawal mechanisms for the B.S.A. and P.S.S.S.A. are contingent
on exact percentages, a difference of even one percent between estimated amounts and actual
amounts could determine whether the Legislature deposits funds into the B.S.A. and P.S.S.S.A.92
V. CONSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS
Propositions can violate the California Constitution by violating the Single Subject
Rule. 93 The Single Subject Rule requires that all parts of an initiative be “reasonably germane” to
each other and the general purpose of the initiative. 94 Proposition 2 generally concerns legislative
reserve fund deposits and expenditures. 95 Section 27 of S.B. 858, which only becomes operative
if Proposition 2 is enacted, contains a provision capping local school district reserves. 96
Although Section 27 of S.B. 858 is inextricably linked to Proposition 2, S.B. 858 is the result of
distinct legislative action separate from Proposition 2; as a result, the Single Subject Rule would
not require the topics of Proposition 2 and S.B. 858 to be reasonably germane. 97 Therefore,
Proposition 2 does not appear vulnerable to a challenge under the Single Subject Rule. 98
A proposition can also violate the constitution if it fails to comply with the procedural
rules governing the initiative process. 99 In analyzing whether a proposition unconstitutionally
fails to comply with procedural rules, the court determines the substantive purpose of the rule
and will only find the proposition unconstitutional if the substantive purpose of the rule is
violated. 100 “The main purpose of the title and summary requirements is to avoid misleading the
public with inaccurate information.” 101 By failing to discuss S.B. 858’s contingent provisions,
the Attorney General’s official summary may mislead the public with inaccurate information,
violating the essential purpose of the summary or Section 9051 of the Election Code requiring
the summary be “true.” 102 Courts have not analyzed whether failing to describe contingent
91
Id.
See NOVEMBER 2014 VOTER GUIDE, supra note 1, at 15–17.
93
CAL. CONST. art. II, § 8(d).
94
Fair Political Practices Comm’n v. Superior Court, 25 Cal.3d 33, 38–39 (1979).
95
NOVEMBER 2014 VOTER GUIDE, supra note 1, at 12.
96
CAL. EDUC. CODE § 42127.01 (as added by S.B. 858 (2013–2014)).
97
See Zaremberg v. Superior Court, 115 Cal. App. 4th 111, 118 (2004) (“‘[T]he title and summary
prepared by the Attorney General are presumed accurate, and substantial compliance with the ‘chief
purpose and points' provision is sufficient.’ While the Act also contains numerous ‘auxiliary and
subsidiary’ matters not mentioned in the summary, it is not unreasonable to conclude, as referendum
proponents argue, that failure to mention the tax credit contingency does not alter the chief purpose nor
render the summary fatally defective. As we have previously explained ‘a statement of the major
objectives . . . of the measure is satisfactory’” (citations omitted).).
98
Id.
99
Assembly of the State of Cal. v. Deukmejian, 30 Cal. 3d. 638, 649 (1982).
100
Id. at 648–650.
101
Zaremberg v. Superior Court, 115 Cal. App. 4th 111, 116 (2004).
102
Amador Valley Joint Union High Sch. Dist. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 22 Cal. 3d 208, 243–44
(1978); CAL. ELEC. CODE § 9051.
92
10
provisions, like those in S.B. 858, makes a summary unconstitutionally deficient; however, as a
summary is only required to describe the “chief principals and points” of the initiative and
Proposition 2’s summary describes the B.S.A. and P.S.S.S.A. reserves the court could reasonably
find that Proposition 2’s summary is not “fatally defective.” 103 Furthermore, invalidating a voterapproved initiative is likely an inappropriate remedy for a procedural violation that may be
remedied by a lawsuit prior to the election. 104 Even if the court were willing to invalidate a
proposition, SB 858 is not part of the official language of Proposition 2, so there is a strong
argument that the Attorney General’s summary is true as applied to Proposition 2.
VI. PUBLIC POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
Proposition 2 received unanimous support in the Legislature and is strongly supported by
the Governor, thus unsurprisingly the proposition has received minimal debate in the Legislature
and the media. 105 For the most part, Proposition 2’s provisions creating more robust State reserve
requirements and requiring the paying down of State debts more quickly have received
widespread support. 106 However, in creating a State school reserve account the funding of which
would satisfy Proposition 98’s spending requirements and by triggering S.B. 858’s limit on local
school reserve accounts, Proposition 2 has faced opposition from education interest groups. 107
A. State Reserves
The official arguments registered with the Secretary of State in support of Proposition 2
emphasizes that the creation of the B.S.A. will help stabilize California’s volatile budget process,
encourage the Legislature to live within their means, and pay down existing debt. 108 According
to Speaker Emeritus Perez, Proposition 2 would “establish a better approach for California’s
budget that saves the spiking revenues we take in during good years, and saves it for those tough
years where revenues are scarce.” Spiking revenue largely results from changes in capital gains
tax revenue, which varies widely from year to year. 109 Since capital gains are the profits a person
or company makes from investments, capital gains tax revenue fluctuates with the stock
market. 110 The Governor has emphasized the need for California legislators to “avoid the
mistakes of the past . . . and . . . establish a solid rainy day fund, locked into the constitution . . .
.” 111 By imposing more rigid requirements for depositing and withdrawing funds from the
103
Amador Valley Joint Union High Sch. Dist., 22 Cal. 3d at 243–44.
No pre-election lawsuit alleging that the Title or Summary were defective has been brought.
105
Complete Bill History: ACAX2-1, OFFICIAL CAL. LEGIS. INFO., http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/1314/bill/asm/ab_0001-0050/acax2_1_bill_20140516_history.html (last visited Oct. 5, 2014).
106
Infra Part IV (A)–(B).
107
Infra Part IV (C).
108
NOVEMBER 2014 VOTER GUIDE, supra note 1, at 12.
109
See Id. at 14.
110
Michael B. Marois, California Law Makers Pass Rainy Day Fund Ballot Measure, BLOOMBERG (May
15, 2014, 11:07 AM), http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-15/california-lawmakers-pass-rainyday-fund-ballot-measure.html.
111
Sharon Bernstein, California Governor Brown Urges Continued Fiscal Restraint, REUTERS (Jan. 22,
2014), http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/23/us-usa-california-governoridUSBREA0K1LJ20140123.
104
11
B.S.A., Proposition 2 would help to ensure the State is financially prepared to mitigate future
downturns in the economy. 112
B. State Debts
The Governor, in particular, has supported Proposition 2 as a way to address California’s
debt. In his official press release calling for the special session that led to the adoption of the
current form of the proposition, Governor Brown stated, “We simply must prevent the massive
deficits of the last decade and we can only do that by paying down our debts and creating a solid
rainy day fund.” 114 Credit ranking companies, such as Standard and Poor’s, have also criticized
California for failing to save money when the economy is doing well and for relying too heavily
on volatile revenue sources like capital gains taxes. 115
113
Reliance on volatile revenue sources to fund as much as two-thirds of the State’s
budget, 116 which includes several long-term funding obligations like public employee pensions,
has been a major source of California’s “Wall of Debt.” 117 When Governor Brown first proposed
his changes to the proposition, the California Chamber of Commerce quickly endorsed his
effort. 118 Other groups like California Forward and the California Business Roundtable, in
addition to tax-payer groups, have also lent their support, noting that the “Wall of Debt” makes
California a risky investment to investors and job creators. 119 Past attempts to address the State’s
debts and continuing obligations came at the cost of cuts to education spending, which
Proposition 2 does not, in the long-run, decrease. 120 While California will continue to face
significant debt problems in the future, Proposition 2’s mandate that the State use, at minimum,
0.75% of General Fund revenue to reduce the debt, which will amount to between $800 million
112
Supra Part III(B)(1).
Governor Calls Special Session on Rainy Day Fund, CBS L.A. (Apr. 16, 2014),
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014/04/16/governor-calls-special-session-on-rainy-day-fund/.
114
Press Release, Governor Brown Calls Special Session to Try to Strengthen Rainy Day Fund (April 16,
2014), available at http://gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=18481.
115
Marois, supra note 110.
116
Id.
117
Jessica Calefati, State Budget: Governor Brown Proposes Paying Down Wall of Debt, Continues to
Call for Restraint, SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS (Jan. 8, 2014, 8:31 PM),
http://www.mercurynews.com/california/ci_24874278/state-budget-gov-jerry-brown-proposes-payingdown.
118
Press Release, Governor Calls Special Session on Rainy Day Reserve (Apr. 17, 2014), available at
http://www.calchamber.com/headlines/pages/04172014-governor-calls-special-session-on-rainy-dayreserve.aspx.
119
Christopher Nelson, Bolstered Rainy Day Fund Would Benefit California Business Community, CAL.
FORWARD (Aug. 7, 2014), www.cafwd.org/reporting/entry/bolstered-rainy-day-fund-would-benefitcalifornia-business-community; SAN DIEGO TAX PAYER’S ASS’N, ASSEMBLY CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENT 1 (July 2014), available at
http://www.sdcta.org/Uploads/Documents/Board%20Approved%20SDCTA%20Position%20Paper%20A
CA%201%207-25-14,%20SK%20FINAL.pdf.
120
Tami Luhby, Big Taxes + Big Spending Cuts = California Budget Surplus, CNN MONEY (Jan. 3,
2014), http://money.cnn.com/2013/02/07/news/economy/california-budget/.
113
12
and $2 billion depending on capital gains tax revenues, makes an important step towards the
reduction of the State’s debt. 121
C. School Reserves
Opposition to Proposition 2 stems from the proposition’s creation of the P.S.S.S.A., a
State school reserve fund. The passage of the proposition would trigger a conditional section of
S.B. 858 setting a cap on the amount of funds local school districts may keep in their own
reserve accounts. Although only 2BadForKids and Educate Our State are registered as
opposition to Proposition 2, the California Association of School Business Officials (School
Business Officials) and the Association of California School Administrators (School
Administrators) additionally oppose the proposition. 122
1. Creation of a State School Reserve
Since the P.S.S.S.A. is a budget reserve account like the B.S.A., many of the benefits
ascribed to the B.S.A. are similarly extended to the P.S.S.S.A. 123 Like the B.S.A., the P.S.S.S.A.
may help to “end the cycle of boom and bust spending” by ensuring funds are available to
stabilize education spending when General Fund revenues fall by diverting some funds away
from schools and into the P.S.S.S.A. when the economy is doing well. 124 By stabilizing funding
levels, the State may enable schools to better and more accurately plan for future years and
implement long-term programs that depend on State revenues. Furthermore, the P.S.S.S.A. and
B.S.A. align with best-practices recommendations from the National Association of State Budget
Officers. 125
Opposition groups support the idea of a State reserve fund for schools, but oppose
Proposition 2 because it may lead to fewer increases in aggregate education spending, it has the
potential to inhibit the implementation of the recent Local Funding Formula, and it may lead the
public to incorrectly believe school funding is adequate. 126
121
Supra Part III (B)(2).
Interview with Catherine Welsh, Treasurer, Educate Our State, in Sacramento, CA (August 2014)
(noting that some opponents to the proposition failed to meet the deadline for registering as official
opponents).
123
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE, BUDGET RESERVE PROPOSALS 6–7 (Apr. 28, 2014), available at
http://www.lao.ca.gov/handouts/state_admin/2014/Budget-Reserve-Proposals-042814.pdf [L.A.O.
PROPOSALS].
124
Press Release, Toni G. Atkins, Legislature Unanimously Passes Rainy Day Fund (May 15, 2014),
available at http://asmdc.org/speaker/news-room/press-releases/legislature-unanimously-passes-rainyday-fund.
125
NAT’L ASS’N OF STATE BUDGET OFFICERS, STATE BUDGETING AND THE LESSONS LEARNED FROM
THE ECONOMIC DOWNTURN (Summer 2013), available at
http://www.nasbo.org/sites/default/files/State%20Budgeting%20and%20Lessons%20Learned%20from%
20the%20Economic%20Downturn-final.pdf.
126
Letter from Jeffrey A. Vaca, Deputy Exec. Dir. of Public Relations, Cal. Ass’n of Sch. Bus. Officials,
to John A. Perez, Speaker of the Assembly, Cal. Legislature (Apr. 28, 2014), available at
122
13
The School Business Officials oppose Proposition 2 because it would allow the State to
count any funds transferred to the P.S.S.S.A. towards the minimum education-spending
guarantee, which Proposition 98 imposed, for the fiscal year when the deposit is made. 127 This
would allow the State, in strong economic years, to avoid increasing the amount of education
spending that reaches schools. 128 As Jennifer Bestor of Educate our State explained, “Since
budget emergencies seem to get called every five years . . . it's not hard to imagine a really good
year . . . putting a little into the P.S.S.S.A., followed by a bad year when, instead of topping up
school spending, anything in the P.S.S.S.A. gets used for base spending to relieve pressure on the
General Fund.” 129 Additionally, 2BadForKids notes that California is currently ranked fiftieth in
the nation in adjusted per-pupil expenditures and that placing revenue in the reserve instead of
increasing funding for education makes long-term increases to aggregate education spending
unlikely. 130 This course will keep California among the lowest in the nation for per-pupil
expenditures. 131 However, as Proposition 98 requires that, at minimum, a certain percentage of
General Fund revenue is annually used for education, aggregate education spending will grow
with General Fund revenues over time.
Additionally, the School Business Officials believe the P.S.S.S.A. will significantly delay
full implementation of the Local Control Funding Formula. 132 The Local Control Funding
Formula is a recent change to the education funding formula that became operative in 2013. 133
Its objective was to transfer an assortment of current prior funding streams to three new grant
programs to increase local control. 134 These three grant programs are based on the student
populations the schools serve and allow school districts to decide how the money is spent. 135
However, the Local Control Funding Formula will not be fully implemented for eight years. 136
Thus, Proposition 2 may be antithetical to the Local Control Funding Formula’s objective of
increasing local control as Proposition 2 may divert funds into State reserves instead of toward
http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1158826/statebud-24-25-rainydayfund-casboopposes042814.pdf
[Vaca Letter].
127
Kimberly Beltran, School Leaders Oppose Brown’s Rainy Day Measure, CABINET REPORT (Aug. 13,
2014), https://cabinetreport.com/politics-education/school-leaders-oppose-browns-rainy-day-measure.
128
Id.
129
Email conversation with Jennifer Burton.
130
Prop 2: Fact vs. Fiction, 2BADFORKIDS, http://www.2badforkids.org/fact_vs_fiction (last visited Oct.
5, 2014); see also John Fensterwald, Latest—But Outdated—Ed Week Survey Ranks California 50th in
Per Pupil Spending, EDSOURCE (JAN. 13, 2014), http://edsource.org/2014/latest-but-outdated-ed-weeksurvey-ranks-california-50th-in-per-pupil-spending/56196#.VBZJwBYXNEM.
131
Id.
132
LCFF Frequently Asked Questions, CAL. DEPT. OF EDU., http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/lc/lcfffaq.asp
(last visited Sept. 14, 2014).
133
Local Control Funding Formula, CAL. TEACHERS ASS’N, http://www.cta.org/Issues-andAction/School-Funding/Local-Control-Funding-Formula.aspx (last visited Sept. 14, 2014).
134
Id.
135
Local Control Funding Formula, CAL. DEPT. OF EDU., http://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/el/le/yr13ltr0807.asp
(last visited Sept. 27, 2014).
136
Local Control Funding Formula Overview, CAL. DEPT. OF EDU.,
http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/lc/lcffoverview.asp (last visited Sept. 14, 2014).
14
the grant programs. 137 The School Administrators share the School Business Officials concerns
and further question the wisdom of having three reserve funds: the P.S.S.S.A., the B.S.A., and
local school district reserves. 138 The opposition believes that local school districts are in the best
position to assess how large a reserve is needed and to decide how it ought to be spent. 139
The School Business Officials also believe that creating a rainy day fund will suggest to
the public that the school system is adequately funded, which is not the case. 140 According to
School Business Officials the State still owes 7.9 billion to pay down the “maintenance factor,”
which is the State’s obligation under Proposition 98 to backfill education funding levels when
the State decreases funding from the previous year. 141 Thus, the public may be misled by
Proposition 2 to believe that the creation of a State school reserve fund is the result of a surplus
of funds. 142
2. Creation of a Local School Reserve Cap
S.B. 858 is the education omnibus trailer bill that contains the provisions implementing
local school district reserve caps and would become operative in December 2014 with the
passage of Proposition 2. 143 The California Teachers Association (CTA) supports the cap on
local school district reserves because “taxpayer dollars need to be spent in our classrooms and on
our children not sitting in bank accounts.” 144 The CTA notes that the average local school
reserve was 30.34% for the 2012–2013 fiscal years, with about 73% of districts having more
than 15% in reserve. 145 During a Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee hearing, a
lobbyist from the California School Employees Association argued that if Proposition 2 passes
without some reserve cap, districts will tend to deposit more money into their reserves,
regardless of need, whenever the Legislature does so. 146 The lobbyist asserted that school
districts would see the Legislature reinforce their rainy day fund and assume they ought to follow
137
Press Release, Ass’n of Cal. Sch. Administrators, Proposed Rainy Day Fund is Bad for Schools (last
visited Oct. 5, 2014), available at
http://www.acsa.org/FunctionalMenuCategories/Media/NewsReleases/Rainyday.aspx.
138
ASS’N OF CAL. SCH. ADMINISTRATORS, PROPOSITION 2—BUDGET STABILIZATION ACCOUNT
TALKING POINTS 1 (last visited Oct. 5, 2014), available at
http://www.acsa.org/MainMenuCategories/Advocacy/Issues-andActions/PositionsonLegislation_1/Prop2TalkingPoints.aspx [TALKING POINTS].
139
NOVEMBER 2014 VOTER GUIDE, supra note 1, at 16.
140
Vaca Letter, supra note 126; L.A.O. PROPOSALS, supra note 123, at 2.
141
L.A.O. PROPOSALS, supra note 123, at 2.
142
Vaca Letter, supra note 126.
143
CAL. EDUC. CODE § 42127.01 (as added by S.B. 858 (2013–2014)).
144
Local Budget Transparency and Cap on School District Reserves, CAL. TEACHER’S ASS’N (June 12,
2014), http://www.cta.org/Blog/2014/June/Local-Budget-Transparency-and-Cap-on-School-DistrictReserves.aspx.
145
Id.
146
John Fensterwald, Cap on District Reserves Passes Despite Lawmaker’s Reservations, EDSOURCE,
(June 16, 2014) http://edsource.org/2014/cap-on-district-reserves-passes-despite-lawmakersreservations/63258#.VAdiCmMXOSo.
15
suit in preparation for a lean funding year. 147 This would, according to supporters, take
additional funds out of the classroom as administrators move allocated funds into their local
school district reserves. 148
Other interested parties at the hearing noted that because the State must satisfy several
factors before it can deposit any funds into the P.S.S.S.A., 149 it would be at least seven years
before the local reserve cap would go into effect, giving the Legislature sufficient time to study
and assess the effects of local reserve caps. 150 The CTA further emphasized that S.B. 858, as a
legislatively enacted law, can be amended or appealed later. 151 The hurdles to depositing funds
into the P.S.S.S.A. and the Legislature’s ability to amend any potential issues later diminish the
potential harm S.B. 858 may cause. 152
The local reserve cap is opposed by several groups, including Educate Our State, 153 the
School Business Officials, 154 School Boards, 155 and the School Administrators, 156 who focus on
both the process by which S.B. 858 was passed and its effects on local school budgets. Senate
Bill 858 was passed through the legislative process as a trailer bill to the State’s education budget
bill, Assembly Bill 86, without any vetting through the legislative process and was not part of
Governor Brown’s original proposed budget in June or any of his revisions in May. 157 Editorials
in SF Gate and the San Jose Mercury News suggest that the proposal was pushed through to
satisfy labor unions who want the reserve funds available for raises. 158
147
Id.
Id.
149
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE, COMMITTEE ANALYSIS OF A.C.A. 1X2 (May 5, 2014), available
at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/asm/ab_00010050/acax2_1_cfa_20140515_093413_sen_floor.html (Deposits will not be made into the P.S.S.S.A. until
the State “has met total school funding requirements . . . , has repaid and allocated the current Proposition
98 maintenance factor . . . , and, has not suspended Proposition 98 in the year of the transfer.”)
150
Id.
151
Fensterwald, supra note 146.
152
Id.
153
EDUCATE OUR STATE!, http://www.educateourstate.org/ (last visited Sept. 14, 2014).
154
Jeff Vaca & Sara C, Bachez, CASBO Adopts “Oppose” Positions on Propositions 44 and 46, CAL.
ASS’N OF SCH. BUS. OFFICIALS,
http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs109/1113248925076/archive/1118113471224.html (last visited Oct.
5, 2014).
155
Bill to Restore School District Reserve Authority Announced at Capitol Press Conference, C.S.B.A.
(Aug. 19, 2014),
http://csba.org/Newsroom/CSBANewsletters/2014/August/ElectronicOnly/AB146PressConference.aspx?
p=1.
156
Plan to Cap Reserves Still a Vexing Issue, CAL. ASS’N OF SCH. ADMINISTRATORS,
http://www.acsa.org/FunctionalMenuCategories/Media/EdCalNewspaper/EdCal2014/July28/Reserves.aspx (last visited Sept. 14, 2014).
157
Id.
158
Editorial, Legislature Allows Big Holes in Rainy Day Fund, SFGATE (June 18, 2014), available at
http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/editorials/article/Legislature-allows-big-holes-in-rainy-day-fund5562956.php; Editorial, Yes on Proposition 44’s Rainy Day Fund, SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS (July 25
2014, 10:10 AM), http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_26215888/mercury-news-editorial.
148
16
Large local reserves, which would disappear if local reserve caps are put in place, allow
districts to adapt to unexpected financial changes. Educate Our State notes that caps may harm
local school district’s credit ratings. 159 Standard and Poor’s explained, “Very strong reserve
levels contribute to a district's fiscal capacity to absorb episodes of unanticipated fiscal strain
and, thus, affect its rating level.” 160 A good credit rating allows school districts to borrow
additional funds during economic downturns. 161 The School Board Association echoed concerns
about local school districts, especially smaller districts, to meet unexpected expenses that arise in
the typical course of operating a school. 162 These caps may amount to only weeks’ worth of
salary for most districts. 163 Such “one-size-fits-all” reserve caps, critics argue, are fiscally
irresponsible in practice since schools have different financial concerns and require different
sized budget reserves. 164
Proposition 2 and S.B. 858 may create an ironic situation wherein the Legislature is
required to build up its reserves while prudent districts are barred from doing the same. 165 This
may also be contrary to the Governor’s own emphasis on local control. 166 The creation of a local
reserve cap runs contrary to the unique position local school districts are in to assess the
educational needs of their districts. 167
VII. CONCLUSION
Proposition 2 would likely reduce State debt over time, increase the likelihood that the
State would annually deposit funds into the B.S.A., and create a reserve fund for public schools
and community colleges known as the P.S.S.S.A. Additionally, the passage of Proposition 2
would trigger a stipulation in S.B. 858 that would, upon the State making a deposit into the
P.S.S.S.A., place a cap on the amount of funds school districts may have in their reserve
accounts.
159
S & P Ratings Service PDF, 2BADFORKIDS, http://www.2badforkids.org/s_p_ratings_service_pdf (last
visited Sept. 14, 2014).
160
Id.
161
Prop 2: Fact vs. Fiction, supra note 130.
162
Letter from Dennis Meyers, Assistant Exec. Dir., Governmental Relations, Cal. Sch. Boards Ass’n, to
Edmund G. Brown Jr., Governor, State of Cal. (June 19, 2014), available at
http://www.csba.org/Advocacy/LegislativeNews/~/media/CSBA/Files/Advocacy/LegislativeAdvocacy/20
14_0619_SB858budgetlettertoGovernor.ashx (“For example, if a roof or HVAC system fails … a small
district needs to draw upon reserves.… Some are so small that if one family moves … the reduction in
funds is a recognizable hit.…”).
163
Id.
164
TALKING POINTS, supra note 138.
165
Plan to Cap Reserves Still a Vexing Issue, supra note 156.
166
Id.
167
ACSA: Restore Adequate School District Reserves, ASS’N OF CAL. SCH. ADMINISTRATORS,
http://www.acsa.org/FunctionalMenuCategories/Media/NewsReleases/Reserve.aspx (last visited Oct. 5,
2014).
17
The legislation putting Proposition 2 on the ballot received unanimous support from the
Legislature and the approval of the Governor. Additionally, there is opposition to the Proposition
from school administrators and other education advocates.
18